The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 10, 2008, 12:08 PM   #1
Dan M.
Member
 
Join Date: February 6, 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 93
Orange County sheriff taking away hundreds of CCWs

Please follow the link and comment. Thanks!

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/p...commentsPage=1
__________________
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Dan M. is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 12:55 PM   #2
Ballenxj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2006
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orange County Sherrif
"The Department has determined that your identified risk does not meet the good cause threshold as required under the new CCW policy based upon the information you provided. As a result of this determination, the Department's present intention is to revoke your CCW license," reads the form letter sent out this month.
Good cause?
Answer, Um, The Second Amendment?
-Bruce
Ballenxj is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 02:13 PM   #3
cohoskip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2007
Location: Chimacum, WA
Posts: 424
Oh well

After all, it's Kalifornia...
__________________
To err is human, to forgive divine
Neither is Marine Corps policy...

NRA Life Member
cohoskip is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 02:23 PM   #4
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Perhaps she will be voted out of office for doing this.
Creature is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 03:23 PM   #5
blume357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
I think the write up about Racist Gun Control notes that

Kalifornia's method of having the county sheriff approve CCWs is totally wrong and very partial... there was one county that had not issued any permits to Black folks in years as and example....

this is just another example... I wonder what the sheriff uses to decide.
blume357 is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 03:31 PM   #6
Majic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Posts: 3,888
Take them to court. The license was issued because the applicant met all the requirements needed at that time. Now I can see them not renewing because of the new law but not revoking a current one when there has been no infraction.
Majic is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 03:35 PM   #7
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,844
Ohio Sheriffs also have discretion. System seems to work pretty well here. I think it is reasonable for local law enforcement to be included to make sure someone who applies is not under suspicion for criminal undertakings even if they have not been brought up on charges yet. Probably a lot will disagree with me here, but if you have an anti-firearm sheriff you probably have a bigger problem than not being able to get a CCW.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 03:37 PM   #8
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,562
Quote:
Good cause?
Answer, Um, The Second Amendment?
-Bruce
The 2A is only a good cause if you believe it to be a good cause. The 2A does not constitute justification of risk which is what the Sheriff requires and the Sheriff has the authority to issue and revoke CCWs.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 05:27 PM   #9
PT111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
In SC the local Sheriff is notified of your application for a CWP and has 7 days to eitehr approve or deny it. If the Sheriff wants to deny it he notifies SLED and they follow up on it. If the Sheriff doesn't respond at all then it is approved. This is one reason for the slow turn-around for SC permits as very few applications are ever looked at by the local Sheriff so it takes the full time. Use to be they had 30 days.
PT111 is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 05:59 PM   #10
Ballenxj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2006
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Nought Spy
The 2A is only a good cause if you believe it to be a good cause. The 2A does not constitute justification of risk which is what the Sheriff requires and the Sheriff has the authority to issue and revoke CCWs.
So, What You're saying then is the Sheriff can just willy nilly say who can carry, and who can not?
Remember, These are law abiding citizens we are talking about here.
-Bruce
Ballenxj is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 07:19 PM   #11
lockedcj7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2007
Posts: 969
Quote:
I think it is reasonable for local law enforcement to be included to make sure someone who applies is not under suspicion for criminal undertakings even if they have not been brought up on charges yet. Probably a lot will disagree with me here, but if you have an anti-firearm sheriff you probably have a bigger problem than not being able to get a CCW.
How utterly absurd. There's a reason that we have a legal system with rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence. I have a serious problem with laws that deprive a person of their rights when they have not been convicted of a crime. At present, a person looses their 2A rights if they are subject to a restraining order or under suspicion for domestic violence. (Not sure if that's a federal or state law.) The burden of proof is much lower and the defendant doesn't even get a chance to be heard in some jurisdictions. In others, they don't even have to be notified of the hearing.

So a psycho vindictive ex decides to get back at you for some real or imagined insult. She gets a sympathetic judge to issue a restraining order against you in absentia and the next thing you know, the sheriff shows up at the door and confiscates your firearms. If you ever want to see them again, you're going to have to spend a lot of money on a lawyer. Your CCW application get denied, or your permit gets revoked. That's OK with you?

I don't care if the sheriff has me under surveillance and believes I'm cooking meth in my basement. Until I'm convicted of a crime, I should not lose any of the rights I enjoy as an American citizen. I've seen enough real investigations done that I don't ever want to be the subject of one. In one case, the authorities didn't interview the one person who was privy to the most information. They couldn't prove that the subject had done anything wrong, which he absolutely had.

If you can't tell, I'm extremely mistrustful of authority figures who have too much power. Having discretionary power as to what constitutes "just cause" is waaaayyyyyy too much power for one person.
__________________
To a much greater extent than most mechanical devices, firearms are terribly unforgiving of any overconfidence, complacency or negligence.
lockedcj7 is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 07:28 PM   #12
MrNiceGuy
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2008
Posts: 919
Quote:
Ohio Sheriffs also have discretion. System seems to work pretty well here. I think it is reasonable for local law enforcement to be included to make sure someone who applies is not under suspicion for criminal undertakings even if they have not been brought up on charges yet.
the thing about discretion is that it doesnt have to be validated by such pesky things as "reasons" nor is there any reliable system to dispute the decision.

perhaps the officer under who's discretion the decision falls decides that he's just having a bad day, or perhaps the handwriting isnt neat enough, or maybe for some reason, the officer just has a "bad vibe"

an individuals "discretion" is a awfully shaky premise to rest ones rights upon.
MrNiceGuy is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 07:33 PM   #13
Dangerwing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 2007
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 237
Quote:
If you can't tell, I'm extremely mistrustful of authority figures who have too much power.
Here Here!! Sounds a lot like some people I learned about in history class...Some guy named Washington, and I think there was one named Jefferson. Oooh Oooh, and I think Franklin and Hancock ring a bell too!!

The fact is, the main reason that our country came to be was a general mistrust of a large federal government. Some say it was "taxation without representation", others say it was "a freedom of religion" issue etc etc, but all of those issues are encompassed by the idea of a mistrust of "the king". That also explains why orriginally the federal government was extremely week - it couldnt even collect taxes!
__________________
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be an aisle at Wal-Mart, not a government agency!

Only faithful men teach their wives to shoot.
Dangerwing is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 08:03 PM   #14
PT111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
It wasn't a mistrust of the King, just they didn't like what he was doing. You don't have to mistrust someone to disagree with them or think that they are an idiot. The King said the colonies couldn't do certain things and they said yes we are and did it anyway.
PT111 is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 08:29 PM   #15
Dangerwing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 2007
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 237
Ok, not mistrust in a sense that he was being dishonest. They didn't trust in his ability to lead fairly. They didn't trust that his rules/laws were what was in the best intrest of their society. Make sense?
__________________
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be an aisle at Wal-Mart, not a government agency!

Only faithful men teach their wives to shoot.
Dangerwing is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 08:37 PM   #16
Ballenxj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2006
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by lockedcj7
How utterly absurd. There's a reason that we have a legal system with rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence.
Hear, hear! The Sheriff is meant to uphold the law, not make them up on the fly, and as he or she see's fit.
-Bruce
Ballenxj is offline  
Old October 10, 2008, 09:20 PM   #17
PT111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
Quote:
Ok, not mistrust in a sense that he was being dishonest. They didn't trust in his ability to lead fairly. They didn't trust that his rules/laws were what was in the best intrest of their society. Make sense?
I can go along with that. Distrust of one's abilities or that they will do the best thing either intentionally or not is different. I trust Al Sharpton a lot more than John Edwards. But I do not trust either to do the best thing for the country? No!!!!!!!!

I trust McCain a lot more than Obama to do the best things for the country but I do not trust either one of them to do very many good things.
PT111 is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 12:12 AM   #18
Bud Helms
Staff
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 13,013
A word to the wise: Taking a thread "political", even unintentionally, by using political candidates or parties by name will get a thread closed quickly in General Discussion.
__________________
"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." - John Lawton, speaking to the American Association of Broadcast Journalists in 1995
Bud Helms is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 01:43 AM   #19
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,260
The way it works here is that issue is purely discretionary. In about half of the (mostly rural) counties CCWs are relatively easy to come by. In the urban centers and a couple of rural counties they are almost impossible to come by. In Los Angeles for example excellent political connections, and throwing celebrity filled campaign fund raisers for the sheriff are the only "good cause" necessary. On the other hand a mere common citizen with a clean record that could document that there is a contract out on their life would probably not be considered to have a good enough cause.

Orange County went from a sheriff famous for only issuing to cronies and contributers to a new sheriff that opened up permits to anyone with a clean record and something resembling good cause. Unfortunately he got caught with his hand deeply in the cookie jar and has been replaced with an anti gun political hack. She's in the process of routinely denying new permits and renewals, and revoking as many existing permits as possible. I suspect that things will eventually settle down into good cause being strictly defined as being a crony, political ally, or major contributer. But it's hard to say right now with her in full disarm the public mode. Since it is for all intents and purposes impossible to unseat a sitting sheriff she's likely there for life. We have a no Beauford Pussers law to prevent the peasantry from running for that office.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.
sholling is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 05:14 AM   #20
PT111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
You have pointed out the problem with "May Issue". In theory the "May Issue" thought is great but sets it up to be ripe with cronyism and graft depending on the whim of the sheriff or judge with the power. To overcome this states must got to "Shall Issue" and make the sheriff state why they are denied rather than "I don't like him or he didn't contribute to my election". Local issuing of permits sounds great but leads to discrimination.

Good luck to all those affected.
PT111 is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 05:35 AM   #21
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,562
Quote:
So, What You're saying then is the Sheriff can just willy nilly say who can carry, and who can not?
Remember, These are law abiding citizens we are talking about here.
-Bruce
Well Bruce, that is the law. It is up to the sheriff because it is a "may issue" law, not a "shall issue" law (although some places go through a judge, I understand, but many/most go through the local law enforcement). You can call it willy nilly or whatever you like because you don't agree with the parameters, but that doesn't change the law.

Of course they are law abiding people. If they weren't, they would not have been given CCWs in the first place. There will be plenty more law abiding people who won't get CCWs because the current sheriff will deny the requests because of a lack of justification. It doesn't make it right, but that is how it is.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 10:03 AM   #22
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,260
Keep in mind that the law was originally intended to keep firearms out of the hands of minorities. Thus the requirement for a face to face interview. It was important to verify the race of the applicant. Thanks to Incitatus for posting this link earlier. These days it's simply evolved into a tool that allows the sheriff reward friends, supporters, and large contributers; and to punish political enemies by leaving them vulnerable to physical attack, robbery, rape, and murder. A tool few sheriffs won't fight to keep tightly under their control.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.
sholling is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 11:42 AM   #23
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,562
If the law isn't being used for minority exclusion these days, why must we keep in mind that minority exclusion was part of the history of the law? How is this relevant to the current situation?
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 12:03 PM   #24
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,260
Because I think to a degree it's still done at an unconscious level. Why else keep the face to face aspect? It's also important to understand the history so that we can fully understand that it was always intended as an exclusionary good old boy system. Like all government encroachment on freedoms the powers that be promise that it only effects other folk, then pretty soon we all get screwed.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.
sholling is offline  
Old October 11, 2008, 12:42 PM   #25
Rich Miranda
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2008
Location: San Antonio, not San Antone...
Posts: 1,203
It's funny how each State in this great Union is so different!

I cannot imagine this ever happening in Texas.
__________________
Read this!: I collect .38 Special and .357 Mag cartridges and I will PAY CASH for the headstamps I don't already have! Please PM me.
Please donate blood, plasma, and platelets - people's lives literally depend on it.
Rich Miranda is offline  
Reply

Tags
l&cr

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13741 seconds with 7 queries